how can I make a stand-alone exe in Visual Studio. Its just a simple Console application that I think users would not like to install a tiny Console application. I compiled a simple cpp file using the visual studio command prompt. Will the exe work even if the .NET framework is not installed? I used native C++ code.
Asked
Active
Viewed 3e+01k times
40
-
Are you asking how to create an .exe that needs no install even for users without the .NET runtime? – D'Arcy Rittich Jan 09 '10 at 21:52
-
2Will C++ work asveikau? Any articles about it? – Mohit Deshpande Jan 09 '10 at 22:05
-
ILMerge was suggested on this later duplicate post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3261942/net-whole-application-as-a-single-exe-file – JohnLBevan Jul 18 '16 at 11:21
-
1You can embed all dlls in you main dll. See: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/189549/embedding-dlls-in-a-compiled-executable](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/189549/embedding-dlls-in-a-compiled-executable) – Marc van Nieuwenhuijzen Aug 19 '16 at 16:37
7 Answers
60
Inside your project folder their is a bin folder. Inside your bin folder, there are 2 folders, a Release and a Debug. For your polished .exe, you want to go into your Release folder.
I'm not quite sure if thats what youre asking
Marlon
- 617
- 1
- 4
- 2
-
This worked for me too, cant believe how long I had to look until finding this. – rlb.usa Dec 20 '11 at 20:42
-
11Note you will have to build the Release version by choosing the Release option under Build > Configuration Manager if it has not already been built. – intcreator Feb 05 '16 at 04:59
-
22
Anything using the managed environment (which includes anything written in C# and VB.NET) requires the .NET framework. You can simply redistribute your .EXE in that scenario, but they'll need to install the appropriate framework if they don't already have it.
Joe
- 38,368
- 16
- 103
- 119
-
-
1It compiles to an exe no matter what. But if you try to run it it'll return an error if .NET isn't installed. – jalf Jan 09 '10 at 22:02
-
3I'm pretty sure that native, unmanaged C++ has nothing to do with .net. You can probably safely deploy it without having to worry about dependencies. – alex Jan 09 '10 at 22:21
-
3You can use unmanaged C++ to avoid the .NET runtime dependency, but depending on the version of Visual Studio the user might need the appropriate Visual Studio runtime DLLs (unless you completely statically link, which is not always 100% easy to do correctly.) – Joe Jan 09 '10 at 22:27
21
If I understand you correctly, yes you can, but not under Visual Studio (from what I know). To force the compiler to generate a real, standalone executable (which means you use C# like any other language) you use the program mkbundle (shipped with Mono). This will compile your C# app into a real, no dependency executable.
There is a lot of misconceptions about this around the internet. It does not defeat the purpose of the .net framework like some people state, because how can you lose future features of the .net framework if you havent used these features to begin with? And when you ship updates to your app, it's not exactly hard work to run it through the mkbundle processor before building your installer. There is also a speed benefit involved making your app run at native speed (because now it IS native).
In C++ or Delphi you have the same system, but without the middle MSIL layer. So if you use a namespace or sourcefile (called a unit under Delphi), then it's compiled and included in your final binary. So your final binary will be larger (Read: "Normal" size for a real app). The same goes for the parts of the framework you use in .net, these are also included in your app. However, smart linking does shave a conciderable amount.
Hope it helps!
Jon Lennart Aasenden
- 3,772
- 2
- 26
- 41
3
I agree with @Marlon. When you compile your C# project with the Release configuration, you will find into the "bin/Release" folder of your project the executable of your application. This SHOULD work for a simple application.
But, if your application have any dependencies on some external dll, I suggest you to create a SetupProject with VisualStudio. Doing so, the project wizard will find all dependencies of your application and add them (the librairies) to the installation folder. Finally, all you will have to do is run the setup on the users computer and install your software.
Pierre-Luc Champigny
- 1,789
- 8
- 28
-
This comment seems to not apply to `dotnet core` users in 2019: it's a __.dll__ in both __bin/Debug__ and __bin/Release__ directories – JSStuball Mar 01 '19 at 13:58
1
I've never had problems with deploying small console application made in C# as-is. The only problem you can bump into would be a dependency on the .NET framework, but even that shouldn't be a major problem. You could try using version 2.0 of the framework, which should already be on most PCs.
Using native, unmanaged C++, you should not have any dependencies on the .NET framework, so you really should be safe. Just grab the executable and any accompanying files (if there are any) and deploy them as they are; there's no need to install them if you don't want to.
alex
- 3,634
- 32
- 43
1
You can embed all dlls in you main dll. See: Embedding DLLs in a compiled executable
Community
- 1
- 1
Marc van Nieuwenhuijzen
- 1,415
- 1
- 14
- 20
0
I don't think it is possible to do what the questioner asks which is to avoid dll hell by merging all the project files into one .exe.
The framework issue is a red herring. The problem that occurs is that when you have multiple projects depending on one library it is a PITA to keep the libraries in sync. Each time the library changes, all the .exes that depend on it and are not updated will die horribly.
Telling people to learn C as one response did is arrogant and ignorant.
PHB
- 29
- 1